Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Academic Versus Journalistic--A Throwdown

Lately, I seem to be coming up against a number of academics who hate the faintest whiff of journalism.

“Journalists are overly emotional,” one sniffed, nose resolutely in the air.  “The writing is too sensational and of dubious merit.”

“There is no careful reasoning in journalism,” another added.  “There’s not even a recognizable logic to it.  It’s all sensational idiocy written by lemmings.  They follow one another right over the cliff.”

It is the same disdain reserved for Wikipedia (Garbage, I tell you!) and Google searches (A plagiarist’s only friend!).

A quick search of much maligned Google yielded the following, courtesy of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University English Language Centre:

“Academic writing style:  writes to appeal to logical reasoning; ideas logically organized; longer structured paragraphs; longer sentences; sentences always grammatically correct; rhetorical questions are rarely used; abbreviated words are rarely used; informal words and phrases are rarely used; does not use exaggerated, emotive words; emphasis markings (exclamation marks) are not used; abstract terms are clearly defined; generalizations supported by evidence; draws heavily on outside reading and references are documented.”

That’s the recipe that gets us “The Post-Apocalyptic Milieu in the Financial Structure of Elizabethan Theatre,” or “I Tweet, Therefore I Believe:  Social Media and Latino/a Catholicism in the Global Village.”  A quick search of Google Earth turned up no hits for the “Global Village.”  Maybe I should try MapQuest.

Do academics design these titles so that no one will want to read the paper that follows?  The rule seems to be, the more obtuse the subject matter, the better.  Who wants to write for the four other people on the planet who have a passing interest in whatever jargonistic title you’re peddling from your ivory tower?

On that note, I must retitle this piece:  “Obtuse on Purpose:  An Examination of the Intricacies and Enthusiasms When The Cranial Structure Enters the Rectal-Sphincter Crevasse.”  To the academics out there who eschew journalism as the Dark Side, pull your head out!

And how do the snobs at Hong Kong Polytechnic describe journalism?

“Journalistic writing style:  writes to entertain or to arouse emotions; loosely organized; short paragraphs; shorter sentences; some sentences may not be grammatically correct; rhetorical questions are usually used; abbreviated words are usually used; informal words and phrases are usually used; use exaggerated emotive words; emphasis markings (exclamation marks) are used; abstract terms are used without definitions; generalizations are seldom supported by evidence; relies on verbal reporting rather than written references.”

Oh, the sin and debauchery of the daily scribe!  Journalists are the anti-Christs of the writing world.  They are the sacrilegious heathens roaming the earth telling stories using short sentences and exclamation points.  The horror!

Academics, the guardians of sanity and equilibrium, are so calm and unemotional, so intelligent, so, well, boring and irrelevant.  Never let having something vital to say to a worldwide audience get in the way of tenure!  And yes, I’ve been using exclamation marks, willy-nilly!

I’m hot on this subject because the 2014 Pulitzer Prizes were announced recently, and after glancing over the work of the winners and those who were nominated, I am struck by the quality of the writing and the necessity of the stories to be told.  Long before there were ivory towers and elitist attitudes, there was the story, the narrative, the thing that got us all gathered around the campfire to listen.

Journalists bring us the world.  (The New York Times—yes; TMZ—not so much!)  Seventy of them lost their lives bringing us the world in 2013.  This year, 14 have been murdered in the line of duty and we haven’t hit the halfway point yet.

How many academics lost their lives bringing us “Gender Issues:  Some Biosociopsychological Discussions?”

Give me the NYTimes reporters David Barstow and Lowell Bergman writing about death and injury among American workers and the employers who violated safety regulations (2004 Pulitzer).

Or, David Halberstam’s seminal reporting from Vietnam (1964 Pulitzer).

Or the weekly columns of wisdom brought to us by Russell Baker (1979), Rick Bragg (1996), Maureen Dowd (1999), and Nicholas D. Kristof (2006).  And those writers are just from the NYTimes.  There are hundreds more slaving away at newspapers, magazines, and media outlets across the country who are creating similar work embodying what Joseph Pulitzer deemed excellent back in 1917 when the award was first given.

Because in journalism, excellence is everywhere; it includes vital writing that is alive with compelling narratives and memorable characters, and the words of journalists demand to be read.  They do their work on impossible deadlines in dangerous places and at great personal cost.

“Too emotional,” the academic said?  Third person objective reporting strives to be clear, concise, and not emotional.  The emotion comes from the reader’s response to a well-told story.  The good stuff presents the facts and leaves it to the reader to decide what to think.

I was discussing using journalism in one of my classes with a colleague.  He asked what news media I’d be using, and I told him the school provided a subscription to The New York Times for each student, as well as a wealth of resources for teachers.  “I’m not going to use that liberal rag,” he said with more than a hint of bitterness.

Get with the program, dude.  A newspaper is the perfect confluence of teaching tools: a plethora of stories that will stimulate writing and debate for each and every class.  Why not use this valuable asset in the classroom?

“I want something less biased,” he added.


“I’ll use Fox News.”

I thought he was joking.  He was not.

All journalism has bias as all human beings have bias, and the best journalistic writing inspires strong emotions in the reader, as I’m sure researching and investigating the story evoked strong emotions in the journalist.  Bias can come simply from the facts that are included in the story, or even left out of the story.  Hell, bias can be introduced in the organization of the facts in the story—what comes first, and what is left to the last paragraph in the inverted pyramid structure of most journalistic writing.  However, even that can result in a teachable moment for students.  Have them try to detect, through critical and analytical reading, the reporter’s bias.

In the end, though, journalism is vital to our world, and I find it offensive the way such writing is denigrated by academics.  Hide in the ivory tower if you must, but in the real world, we need journalism to stay informed and connected to the stories that matter.  We need to read both sides of every issue, every angle, every narrative fractal we can find.  How much academic writing, outside of the academy truly matters?  That’s a rhetorical question, and I use it proudly.

Monday, April 14, 2014

No Strangers To Tragedy

Courtesy CBS News

Two recent stories continue to haunt me, as I’m sure they haunt the rest of the nation.

At a Pennsylvania high school, young Alex Hribal, age 16, greeted his fellow students one morning last week by stabbing 21 of them with a set of kitchen knives.  He also attacked a school security officer.  Four of his victims remain in critical condition.

Tomorrow, the school will reopen so parents and students can do a walk-through.  The school plant has been cleaned and sanitized of the blood and gore, but the fear, I’m afraid, will be much harder to clean away.  Classes begin on Wednesday, but it is safe to say no one in the community will be the same again.

Hribal did not stand out as a troubled teen before the rampage.  Mental illness does not necessarily broadcast its presence to the world before bullets fly or steel flashes, bloodstained and corroded, in a school hallway.  There are sleepers out there, psychologists warn us.  Some of them sleep in our homes with us.  They are the children we thought we knew, until the day without warning when they rise up and act out.  Then we are left to wonder why.  I still cannot believe there were no signs from Alex before the morning of the knives.

Maybe his signs were not so obvious, as they were with Sandy Hook school shooter Adam Lanza.  He refused to communicate with his parents except through email even when they were in the next room.  He blacked out his bedroom windows with trash bags and duct tape.  One would think that was evidence enough that the dam was about to break.  We don’t know what his mother was thinking because she was his first victim.  In this latest knife attack, the perpetrator did not give the kind of warnings Lanza did.

Post-attack, it is clear that Hribal will face the consequence of his actions, if he even comprehends what he has done.  If convicted, he faces 585 years in prison, which is a long time to think about things, or he may be institutionalized to simmer away in his madness.  Whatever happens, it is doubtful he will ever see freedom.

The second tragedy befell students about to graduate this spring, and was not the fault of an insane kid carrying a gun or a knife.  On board buses headed for California State University at Humboldt in northern California, five students and three chaperones were killed when a Fed Ex tractor-trailer crossed the center median and struck one of the buses head on.  This is a tragedy without a clear evil intent, but it is a horrific tragedy nonetheless, and equally nonsensical.  Many of these victims, only a few months away from starting a new chapter in their lives, were severely burned in the inferno, leaving both physical and mental scars that will last a lifetime.

Graduation.  The cusp of the rest of your life.  Death should come for us in old age and include a celebration around the casket for a life well-lived.  Now we mourn what never will be, a life aborted in its infancy.  These kids never had a chance to bud, much less flower in this burgeoning spring of their lives.

We have become inured to the horror.  The phone call from the school administration, the state police, the county coroner, has become the expected, not the exception.  Tragedies happen and we prepare for when, not if.

It is na├»ve to wish events like stabbings and shootings and car crashes would never happen, or to wish those lost souls alive once more.  I’d be happy to go back to the days when such events happened so infrequently as to be the aberration they should be, the horrific anomaly instead of the more commonplace events they have become.  Now we stagger, from tragedy to tragedy, anticipating this nightmare that has become our reality.  And we try to go on.

Saturday, March 29, 2014

David Simon and the Audacity of Despair

David Simon, creator and writer of The Wire (HBO, 2002-2008) and Treme (HBO, 2010-2013), author of the nonfiction crime classics, Homicide:  A Year on the Killing Streets (Houghton Mifflin, 1991) and The Corner:  A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighborhood (Broadway, 1997), and former reporter for the Baltimore Sun, can now add cultural critic and riveting public speaker to his resume, although I would argue that his work has always involved sharp and barbed cultural criticism whether in television fiction or in signed pieces of simmering nonfictional journalism.  In every case, in every word, he is a force of nature.

My love for his work led me to his blog, The Audacity of Despair, a perverse reworking of Barack Obama’s 2008 memoir and political wax job.  The subtitle is “prose, links and occasional venting,” which about sums up the content.  Simon’s writing is piquant and cutting at times, but he also does a good job, better than most writers, of taking a sweeping, gigantic public policy issue or philosophical moment and rendering it in small, powerful scenes and interactions between characters.  Although his work has a definite point of view, he does not skimp on character.  He is like a reincarnation of famed Baltimore Sun reporter and cultural critic H.L. Mencken for the digital age.

His intimate revelations between characters are best illustrated by his March 4th post entitled, “Carnival Time.”  It is a spare, moving dialogue between Simon and his daughter as they walk the streets of New Orleans one night at the start of carnival season, that rich and evocative time Simon captured so well in Treme.  In a few short lines, he gives us childhood, life, death, and a reflection on what makes us human and what makes such moments the fleeting gems of pure love and grace we all live for.

He can also be the angry man raging at a merciless and unforgiving God or a blustering fool of a politician, like New Jersey Governor Chris Christy.  Check out his post, “The Highway’s Jammed With Broken Heroes…” for Simon’s gleeful takedown of the former Republican presidential candidate.

Through his blog, I found several videos of Simon speaking in a variety of forums about the state of America.  A good sampler can be found on Bill Moyers’ website.  Moyers has interviewed Simon a few times.  His most recent appearance is entitled, “David Simon on America as a Horror Show.”

One of his best public speeches was at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in 2013.  Here’s the entire video:

For me, David Simon’s work, whether it be on HBO, at the lectern speaking to a packed audience, or on his blog, is crucial to the dialogue that should be taking place across America.  Like Charles Dickens, his cultural critique can be a little heavy-handed at times, but always imperative.  I look forward to his next film project, and until then, will continue to read his blog and whatever else he publishes.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

How To Save America (Or At Least Catholic Education)


It is, admittedly, a hyperbolic title.

If you are looking for answers to Iran’s nuclear development, the war in Afghanistan, or what exactly happened to Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, you won’t find them here.

This post deals with the growing controversy over Common Core Standards, the voluminous and quite frankly confusing bureaucratic boondoggle supported by the Obama administration and Bill Gates, that allegedly will impose benchmarks equaling a national standard of achievement in American schools.  Republicans, especially the Tea Party nut jobs, hate Common Core because they fear the federal government is taking over classrooms and forcing teachers to teach—gulp!—liberal ideas.  However, there are Republicans, and Democrats who liked the standards and even voted for them initially.  Now that people realize Common Core will cost states billions to implement, everybody has become skittish.  Indiana this week became the first of 45 states to opt out of the program.

It comes down to this:  supporters say Common Core institutes consistency and academic rigor across the curriculum and across the United States to guarantee that every teacher and student works from the same educational playbook to meet the same standards.  This is problematic because every state is composed of its own constituency, a populace that has its own special needs and requirements in all facets of life, including education.  There are things best left up to the state to decide, and other things that the federal government can mandate, and like the education of the human mind, it is not always easy to form blanket statements about what constitutes an educated person across our multicultural land.  For instance, the students in the Los Angeles Unified School District have different needs from students in the Aleutians East Borough School District (approximately 700,000 students versus 275 students; southern California versus southwest Alaska).

More disturbing to me is the lemming-like behavior of Catholic school departments of education across the country who are rushing to embrace Common Core.  Catholic schools have prided themselves in offering a better education than their public counterparts.  The curriculum was known for its rigor, and the schools for graduating high-performing students who excel in college and in life.  You could argue that I am presenting a biased view of the success of Catholic education, and you’d be right, but I can back it up both from personal experience as a student and as a teacher.  There is also a wealth of statistics to support my assertion, but I digress.

My point is that Catholic schools should be running away from endorsing Common Core.  If anything, parish schools should return to the rigorous teaching and learning that has distinguished those institutions throughout their history.  I always thought that was the selling point for parents who must pay tuition on top of taxes that support public schools to get their kids into the local Catholic K-12.  Sure parish schools are suffering a decline in enrollment due to the poor economy and a financially stressed middle class, but the marketing key is the kind of education Catholic schools have always offered—superior, disciplined, successful, rigorous, and yes:  Catholic!  A Catholic school education will meet and exceed the Common Core standards if we remain true to our traditions.

So why are Catholic schools chasing the Common Core bandwagon?  Well, let’s be clear:  there is a battle going on for control of the Catholic school train.  The New York Times reported that 100 Catholic scholars besieged Catholic bishops to reject Common Core standards.  Meanwhile, the Cardinal Newman Society, an organization founded in 1993 to “promote and defend faithful Catholic education,” revealed that the National Catholic Education Association (NCEA) accepted more than $100,000 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to promote Common Core in Catholic schools.  There is not enough evidence nor have any studies been done to indicate that these standards will insure a quality education and student success for those who have jumped whole hog into the big vat of Kool-Aid Gates and Obama are asking students, teachers, and parents to drink.  To blindly follow means allowing the federal government to dictate Catholic education.

Who stands to benefit from Catholic schools adopting Common Core?  Well, Bill Gates and his technology interests will definitely benefit, as textbook companies are now rushing to develop apps and programs that are compatible with Windows 8 touchscreen operating systems.  According to the Cardinal Newman Society, “The Common Core System of Courses is the first curriculum built for a digital personalized learning environment that is 100 percent aligned to the new standards for college and career readiness.”  There is no evidence yet that students graduating under these standards will be better prepared for college or a career, but this is evidence that these standards will be used to dictate school curriculum and of course, standardized testing.  Standards must be measured—assessment equals standardized tests.  Teaching material found on the tests means aligning curriculum with assessment.  So the standards will, in fact, influence what is being taught in the classroom, as well as how it is being taught, despite denials of such influence by the Obama administration.  Textbook publishers such as Pearson, Sadlier, Inc., and Riverside Publishing are all rushing to create texts, workbooks, apps, programs and other resources to meet the demand of schools clamoring for Common Core materials.  Unfunded mandates of over 10 billion dollars, as well as annual costs going forward will be foisted on the individual states, according to at least one news source.

The NCEA found out that their full-throated endorsement of Common Core also comes with a philosophical cost.  The Cardinal Newman Society reported in December that the NCEA had “to correct the first-grade unit plan by removing three resources which celebrated families headed by same-sex or divorced couples.”  That is a double revelation:  one, it is shortsighted in this day and age to remove such material from the classroom as many same-sex and divorced couples are a vital part of parish congregations and school families; and two, the NCEA now finds itself in bed with some questionable partners who may have hijacked Catholic education.

How to save the nation, or more specifically, Catholic education?  Catholic schools should stick to the kind of education offered for more than a hundred years in their American institutions, one that graduates successful men and women who have time and again demonstrated their ability to enrich the fabric of our society.  There is no substitute, no computer program, no benchmark standard, no newfangled fad that can replace such a tradition of teaching and learning excellence.  Catholic schools should not be running after public schools; they should continue to proudly lead the way in educating students to be well-rounded, thoughtful citizens.  Our children’s education is too important to surrender to those professing “new ideas” composed of unsubstantiated promises with a hefty financial, intellectual and moral price tag.  Catholic education has never tread on common ground and should not do so now.  For the good of our students, we must continue to aim higher.